Posted
by
BeauHDon Monday July 24, 2017 @05:50PM
from the consumers-first dept.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Senate and House Democratic leaders today proposed new antitrust laws that could prevent many of the biggest mergers and break up monopolies in broadband and other industries. "Right now our antitrust laws are designed to allow huge corporations to merge, padding the pockets of investors but sending costs skyrocketing for everything from cable bills and airline tickets to food and health care," US Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) wrote in a New York Times opinion piece. "We are going to fight to allow regulators to break up big companies if they're hurting consumers and to make it harder for companies to merge if it reduces competition." The "Better Deal" unveiled by Schumer and House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was described in several documents that can be found in an Axios story. The plan for "cracking down on corporate monopolies" lists five industries that Democrats say are in particular need of change, specifically airlines, cable and telecom, the beer industry, food, and eyeglasses. The Democrats' plan for lowering the cost of prescription drugs is detailed in a separate document. The Democrats didn't single out any internet providers that they want broken up, but they did say they want to stop AT&T's proposed $85.4 billion purchase of Time Warner: "Consolidation in the telecommunications is not just between cable or phone providers; increasingly, large firms are trying to buy up content providers. Currently, AT&T is trying to buy Time Warner. If AT&T succeeds in this deal, it will have more power to restrict the content access of its 135 million wireless and 25.5 million pay-TV subscribers. This will only enable the resulting behemoths to promote their own programming, unfairly discriminate against other distributors and their ability to offer highly desired content, and further restrict small businesses from successfully competing in the market."

We already have anti-trust laws. The primary point of them is to break up companies that are too big, or to prevent the formation of companies that are too big. The solution is to enforce those laws seriously not to add more laws on top.

The primary point of anti-trust laws is not to break up companies, but seek remedies against companies when they violate the laws. If a company is deemed a monopoly, that could possibly be one of the remedies, but it's not the goal of anti-trust laws to break up companies because people "feel like" they are too big.

I don't like AT&T. I don't like Comcast, either. But lately Comcast has been pushing HBO, trying to get subscribers to pony up for the premium channel, citing shows like the new season of Game of Thrones. HBO is a Time Warner property. They have also spent quite a bit promoting that you can watch Netflix on their X1 platform. Apparently, despite how much I dislike Comcast, they are not forcing their own (NBC Universal) content on me.

Point being that large companies are actually capable of not violating anti-trust laws, and there's nothing inherently wrong with being enormous conglomerates until they actually start violating the law. I agree they simply need to be enforced, and like any effective deterrent, they need to be enforced swiftly and with commensurate punishments.

> there's nothing inherently wrong with being enormous conglomerates until they actually start violating the law.

That's a philosophical determination, not a factual claim. When talking about "the good", it's important to set a standard so that it might be measured and some sort of determination can be made. The common good in terms of retaining or growing economic power for the average individual of a population? or what? In practice, the concentration of wealth has shown to have a negative impact on all strata of economic systems for many definitions of common good. Even when redistribution occurs, it's usually applied in a regressive manner, so it's hard to say what the proper remedy would even look like.

There is commensurate political power that comes with economic power, as with every economic system in history. This will never go anywhere for the political reason, not because politicians will come to their senses about some quasi-morality like "it's ok for the super-powerful super-wealthy organizations to be super wealthy".

Well, you've proved you aren't, despite any schools you may have attended.

Capitalism has raised more people out of poverty & starvation, has raised the average standard of living higher and faster for more people, done more to advance science and technology, done more to empower the poorest and provide a way out of poverty, and has provided more charitable assistance worldwide than any other system yet devised by Man. And that's just a partial listing.

As the saying goes, capitalism is a deeply flawed system but it beats anything else that's been tried.

As the saying goes, capitalism is a deeply flawed system but it beats anything else that's been tried.

The economic defense of capitalism is premised on the ubiquity of competitive markets, providing for the rational allocation of scarce resources and justifying the existing distribution of incomes. The political defense of capitalism is that economic power is diffuse and cannot be aggregated in such a manner as to have undue influence over the democratic state. Both of these core claims for capitalism are demolished if monopoly, rather than competition, is the rule.

Both of these core claims for capitalism are demolished if monopoly, rather than competition, is the rule.

Quite true.

A functioning capitalist economy/society must have Rule of Law to make certain laws, contracts, etc etc are not broken or violated. There must be laws against predatory monopolistic actions and the must be enforced, and enforced equally.

Most of the laws to restrain such predatory monopolistic actions are already on the books. There is no lack of laws under which to prosecute such crimes, or prosecute anyone for almost anything, there are so many laws and regulations with the force of law on the books.

No, what is lacking is the willingness, nothing else. This is because as government gets larger, the difference between government and large businesses and financial interests becomes less and less. This is one of the main reasons why it is wise to keep the central government weak and relatively small. First, a weaker government is less attractive to the corruptible/corruptors as the risk/reward ratio is narrowed and pushed into the red, and second, what corruption that occurs can only inflict a minimum of damage. Less bureaucracy in which to hide corruption, incompetence, and to avoid accountability hiding within the faceless ranks.

Capitalism has raised more people out of poverty & starvation, has raised the average standard of living higher and faster for more people, done more to advance science and technology, done more to empower the poorest and provide a way out of poverty, and has provided more charitable assistance worldwide than any other system yet devised by Man. And that's just a partial listing. As the saying goes, capitalism is a deeply flawed system but it beats anything else that's been tried.

Pure capitalism is an extremely ruthless and egoistic system and far from the "best we've tried". We've chained the beast in a ton of laws for it to treat the consumers decently, the workers decently, the competitors decently, the environment decently, pay their share of taxes for public education, infrastructure and so on but it's a slippery eel when it comes to anything that affects the bottom line. A few philanthropists who've accumulated so much wealth they'd like to create a legacy, allegedly for chari

Pure capitalism is an extremely ruthless and egoistic system and far from the "best we've tried".

Gods above and below, you are completely daft.

Feel free to demand each according to his needs, and quickly find out your need is a moldy potato.

There is a middle ground between these two extreme positions. A restrained capitalism keeps the peace while still allowing the rich to be quite rich. An effective inheritance tax is even more inline with capitalism. Let each generation earn their own way on their own merits. The rich will still be able to help influence at least two generations. The concept of trusts and other tax shelters need to be done away with. The wealth card should not renew automatically forever.

That's a strawman argument. He never said anything about communism, he never said any capitalism was bad. He said "pure capitalism is ruthless & egoistic." [emphasis added] His point is that laws are needed to restrain the rich and powerful.

capitalize first happened I think much farther back than 6k years. More likely when Og realized that being bigger than anyone else in the tribe, he could get more meat from every shared meal and more women if he beat the crap out of every other male in the tribe. Thereby Og provided a "service" by not beating the crap out of people in exchange for getting what he wanted. Capitalism works the same today for the most part. Bullying people into paying an extra share of whatever for whatever you have if you

Since you are an expert on capitalism, you will surely be aware of Smith's warnings about handing out corporate charters and the importance of a well regulated market. You will also be aware of the need for all parties to have some reasonable parity of economic power in order for markets to work as they should.

Knowing that and being a supporter of capitalism, you should well understand the importance of limiting wealth accumulation and be all for it.

What's the problem with wealth accumulation? Other than petty jealousy? What matters is the average quality of life and whether or not the average person is content. Who cares if someone has more than you. Worry about if you have your needs met. And your needs to not include every luxury under the sun.

Nothing like shallow fallacy logic.

The problem with accumulated wealth goes back to the first recorded Democracy and ideas recorded in Plato's "The Republic". Paraphrased for convenience, The problem with people becoming extremely wealthy is that they are free to fuck with everyone else to gain more and more wealth. The same is true for any form of power really, but money is the easiest for people to understand.

People on the Right don't hate Soros because he has money, they hate him because later in life much of his money came questionably and he funds people who he believes benefits him and his agenda in politics. People on the Left don't hate the Koch brothers because they have money, they hate him because they fund people who they believe benefit them and their agenda in politics.

The problem with accumulated wealth goes back to the first recorded Democracy and ideas recorded in Plato's "The Republic". Paraphrased for convenience, The problem with people becoming extremely wealthy is that they are free to fuck with everyone else to gain more and more wealth. The same is true for any form of power really, but money is the easiest for people to understand.

I'm in full agreement. In short, Absolute Power tends to corrupt absolutely, if not this generation, then the next.

Inheritance taxes are a good thing. They are in fact an essential thing as a check on absolute power. If there is a single thing republicans want that must be stopped above every other thing it is that.

A democracy can be manipulated, until it barely resembles a democracy. Control enough wealth and power and you can manipulate enough of the inputs that the outcome can be shaped.

The founders of the USA created a system of checks and balances to restrain the government. This included splitting powers between the state and federal governments and splitting the power of the federal government between the legislature, executive, and judiciary, all of which were appointed by different mechanisms.

They didn't feel the need to provide similar checks and balances on the power of rich people or corporations, because neither was particularly powerful in the US at the time of founding (if

If you think power is easier to abuse in government than it is in a corporation or private individual with a few billions, you really haven't been paying attention.

If you think corporate regulation is bad, have a look at all the red tape the bureaucracy has to fight through to get anything done. Have a look at all the public scrutiny on the higher levels of government. Have a look at how many people have to sign off on everything for even inconsequential actions.

There's no need for elections, no worries about limited terms, and public opinion is almost irrelevant to any diversified individual or corporation. And if they want more power than their money already gives them, they can lobby to get the rules changed to suit them more, or simply move to a more favourable jurisdiction.

And that's begging a question. Though, GP didn't offer any solution but rather made a complaint. I have no solution or suggestion of how to break the power of wealth either. But for sure, enough money will get you power. Enough power will get you wealth. It is a vicious cycle.

As the GP actually said, "where it is easiest to abuse". Obviously governments have more power, they control entire armies - but they're certainly not the easiest place to abuse power, short of a full military dictator.

What's the problem with wealth accumulation? Other than petty jealousy?

As many others have already pointed out, with great wealth comes great power, which is invariably abused. Perhaps the obscenely rich don't intend to hurt anybody and destroy the environment, but they don't see the consequences of their actions and they don't care. People around the world live in extreme poverty as a consequence; we in the West are isolated from the reality of this, but there is a clear line from wealthy people and corporations seeking more wealth, through local corruption in 3rd world countries to extreme poverty, so calling it petty jealousy when people object to this state of affairs is at best, simply uninformed.

What matters is the average quality of life and whether or not the average person is content.

The average is all that matters? So, if you live in a room that is 50 degrees centigrade half the day and 0 the other half, you will be confortable in shorts and a t-shirt, because on average the temperature is 25 degrees?

Who cares if someone has more than you. Worry about if you have your needs met. And your needs to not include every luxury under the sun.

Isn't 'caring if someone has more than you' what drives capitalism? Ambition, in other words - the constant drive to do better, have more, acquire luxuries; why else would anyone work hard to make more money rather than just hang around in an armchair, beer in hand? What you are saying is nothing more than the shallow excuses for inequality, oppression and slavery, as they have been used throughout the ages. It's the sort of nonsense that goes along with saying "we're better of being poor".

What's the problem with wealth accumulation? Other than petty jealousy? What matters is the average quality of life and whether or not the average person is content. Who cares if someone has more than you. Worry about if you have your needs met. And your needs to not include every luxury under the sun.

If wealthy people just did that, they wouldn't be wealthy now would they? So maybe there's something else at play.

Taking issue with concentrated wealth is not about jealousy; though many rich people like to think that because it makes the issue easy to dismiss. No, it's about out-sized power. With economic power comes political power. The very wealthy have access to government that regular people don't. They are able to have their voice heard and influence policy for their own ends; sometimes to the de

But lately Comcast has been pushing HBO, trying to get subscribers to pony up for the premium channel, citing shows like the new season of Game of Thrones.

I can see their angle here. GOT is huge, and the bigger it is, the more people willing to pay to watch, the easier it is to buy cable. If you rope in a chord-cutter with HBO, and then get them paying for one or two more channels, bundle in some internet, and all of a sudden, customer is thinking why am I paying all these seperate bills that add up to close to regular cable anyway? And now there's a 6 month promotion where I'll actually save money. 6months later, 'ya, I need to cancel, but it's freaking

With a large conglomerate it's not a question of IF, it's a question of WHEN. And those companies can move slowly to remain undetected for a long time until they finally get discovered, but at that time they may have infiltrated the world so tight that they are hard to remove. Look at Facebook - you can hardly browse the web without getting Facebook cookies poured into your browser.

Point being that large companies are actually capable of not violating anti-trust laws

I suppose after capturing lawmakers and regulators this could be a true statement.

there's nothing inherently wrong with being enormous conglomerates until they actually start violating the law.

It's not really about the law as it is but rather promoting structures that reinforce good behavior rather than betting against reality while incentivizing bad behavior. When you fail to do this you inevitably end up with Ajit Pai heading FCC, Scott Pruit at EPA and consumers with bills for telecom services that are multiples of what they cost in other countries with comparable standards of living.

The primary point of anti-trust laws is not to break up companies, but seek remedies against companies when they violate the laws

I agree they simply need to be enforced, and like any effective deterrent, they need to be enforced swiftly and with commensurate punishments.

The democrats are searching for a reason, any reason, no matter how crazy or ill-advised that will hopefully get people to the polls to vote for them. This is but a trial balloon to test the political winds aloft.

They already know that the Anti-Trust laws exist, they don't care. They NEED a cause (other than bashing Trump or keeping Obamacare which is for their base) to recapture the middle. This is a good as any I suppose..

Much more like Democrats: We had control of congress for 2 years and passed Obama Care. The presidency is meaningless if the party in power in congress has a clearly stated goal of opposing everything the president supports.

The Republicans can't even keep their own party in order long enough to repeal Obama Care under similar circumstances. Meanwhile more and more people are realizing that "hey, being poor shouldn't mean I should have to go massively in debt just because I'm unlucky enough to get sick".

Oh, please, peddle your conspiracy theories elsewhere. It's true the Affordable Care Act isnt working perfectly but you have no evidence that it was designed to fail. You're just making up a fantasy scenario to smear people whose politics you dont like

Also the poor get their healthcare subsidized under Obama Care with many getting access to medicare.

The democrats are searching for a reason, any reason, no matter how crazy or ill-advised that will hopefully get people to the polls to vote for them.

Wait... wait... a political party... trying to get... people... to vote... FOR... THEM?

HOLDTHEFUCKINGPHONEOMGWTFBBQIJUSTSHITMYPANTS!!!!!

You've done it. I've soiled my pants and my heart has stopped and I ruptured my vocal cords screaming in shock at this upsetting insight. I'm literally dead and covered with feces. That's what the shock of what you just said has done to me. You need to introduce things slowly, you can't just drop "Political parties in democracies seek to get votes" on us like that.

They NEED a cause (other than bashing Trump or keeping Obamacare which is for their base) to recapture the middle.

No, Obamacare was for the middle. Single payer like the rest of the civilized world is for their base. "Lets make the US an actual fucking democracy where 1 citizen = 1 vote instead of 1 redneck vote = 100 city votes" is for their base.

"How about we don't let huge corporations rule the country" maybe could be considered for the middle, but personally I think the average voter is far too stupid for that to catch on, so I'm almost more convinced it's just because it's a smart idea.

We have antitrust laws right now, but that's like saying "We have antibiotics right now, what do we need to develop new ones for?" We need new antitrust laws because banks, telecoms, and media companies are still getting too big and powerful compared to real citizens.

"That said, this kind of thing should focus on "too big to fail" rather than harm to consumers. The former seems much easier to quantify versus some notion of harm."

There's really no such thing as too big to fail for a cable company. The country would not go down the drain should every cable company fail at once.

"We already have an anti-trust act that's largely ignored. The existence of "too big to fail" or "abusive oligopolies" are simply are result of the failure to enforce what laws we have already."

It's your classic "let's create another worthless scrap of paper and pretend that that alone will fix the problem" approach. Half ass it (or less) and then blame everyone else when it fails.

You are perhaps being too cynical. The current anti trust laws may merely be inadequate. It's possible they could use some beefing up.

It's possible to do good with legislation. Obamacare generated a lot of noise from the right wing, the left wing and from cynics. Many of their criticisms were on point, but the system is still an improvement over what we ha

Shouldn't all politicians seek to find policies which resonate with their constituents?

No. Politicians should have principles, and stick to them. They should stand up for things they believe in, and try to convince voters that they are right. What they should NOT do is find out what a plurality of voters want, and then just bend their principles to give it to them.

The thing is that Democrats allowed these mergers they are decrying. Obama allowed not just one but two of the biggest mergers in media history and left office with a third one pretty much approved.

The main reason this is happening is because Dems are finally noticing that they created this media mess that got Trump elected and most likely reelected. Now that it's no longer working in their favor must it be abolished. It's just a repeat of the Nixon administration and the Bell breakup.

Somehow Democrats and Obama did this while Republicans controlled both houses of Congress.[1]

The DOJ, FCC, and FTC are executive branch agencies, controlled by the Chief Executive. A decision by the DOJ not to prosecute under anti-trust law, or the FTC/FCC to allow a merger, are executive branch decisions.

Republicans controlled the House for the last six of Obama's eight years in office, and the Senate for the last two.

And every time they tried to oppose something Obama wanted they were called racist or obstructionist.

"And every time they tried to oppose something Obama wanted they were called racist or obstructionist."

And yet the republican party built their last six years of governance on opposing Obama. Mitch McConnell made things pretty clear when he made the Republicans stated goal defeating Democrats rather than governing responsibly. I mean, how many times did congress vote to repeal Obama Care under Obama? A shameful amount of time wasted when so many Americans go bankrupt due to health costs.

the party is stacked with "Corporate Dems" like Chuck Schumer & the Clintons who are really just Republicans that think pot should be legal, immigration is fine and maybe we should leave the gays alone (but don't let 'em marry, that's icky).

They're searching for an issue they can use to differentiate themselves from the Repubs. They can't do Medicare for All, College for All, End the Wars, real infrastructure bills (aka the "New New Deal") or even really end the war on drugs since their donors don't want any of that. So we get crap like this. Meanwhile they keep losing seats because what the hell's the point of voting for Republican Lite?

The Bernie Democrats (a wing of which is calling themselves "Justice Democrats") is trying to kick 'em out of the party. If you want to see the country move to the left you need to join 'em and get voting in your primary.

the party is stacked with "Corporate Dems" like Chuck Schumer & the Clintons who are really just Republicans that think pot should be legal, immigration is fine and maybe we should leave the gays alone (but don't let 'em marry, that's icky).

Sorry, but that is backwards. "Progressives" are Democrats almost exclusively, and they have infiltrated the Republican party starting right around the Reagan era. You know, that guy with a R in front of his name? or maybe Eisenhower? We could go back further but I'd hate to embarrass you by showing you all of the "Progressives" who were Democrats. (It would also bring out all of the racists, segregationists, and Jim Crowe supporters. You don't want to go there.)

The Bernie Democrats (a wing of which is calling themselves "Justice Democrats") is trying to kick 'em out of the party. If you want to see the country move to the left you need to join 'em and get voting in your primary.

What a troll. I don't think I've ever seen a better one. You tick all the boxes, referencing my post while ignoring it to make a nonsensical point that passes the truthiness test (Leftist gave us Trump, which is so silly I'm not going to bother).

You don't believe that if the Democrats ran a better candidate Trump would have lost? You can't run a basic Google search and find all of the Presidents, Senators, and Congress people and find their ideologies and influences? Oh, I get it. You just don't like facts.

You should go work for one of those Russian outfits that engineered the Trump presidency. Shoot Jared and email, I'm sure he'll meet with you (he meets with _everybody_). Say hi to Paul Manafort for me.

Oh, I see. It wasn't that Trump won the Electoral college with a better message for Middle Class Americans and looked cleaner than Clinton. It was all those damn Russians who did it.

You do realize that that narrative lacks any facts, and was completely dismissed by the Obama Administration's head officials right? Oh noes, more of those things called "facts"! Show me one single fact of Russia hacking the election. I will personally write my Senator, Congressional Rep, the AG, and President and demand that Comey, Kerry, and Clapper be tried for Contempt of Congress since they lied.

I'm pushing back against the Marxist tactics the far left has engaged in since Trump won the election, you are promoting them. Who exactly works for the Russians between the two of us? If you are lost on the "Marxist tactics", see how other totalitarian governments attack opponents and their families.

We can debate facts, but facts in political threads tend to be moderated "troll" on Slashdot. While your allergy to facts is bothersome to rational debate, it's actually sensible on Slashdot. FWIW, I'm not pro-Trump at all. That does not make me for the BS that the far left and media have been spreading for the last year.

the party is stacked with "Corporate Dems" like Chuck Schumer & the Clintons who are really just Republicans that think pot should be legal, immigration is fine and maybe we should leave the gays alone (but don't let 'em marry, that's icky).

You grossly understate the difference between the parties, even while the party that controls all three branches of government plots (in actual secrecy) to strip healthcare from the poorest Americans to give tax cuts to the top 1%.

Hillary's FCC would not be dismantling net neutrality and her Supreme Court nominees would not say that corporations are people, or that forced arbitration terms must be obeyed. And hawkish as she is, it is a safe bet Hillary wouldn't let generals kill as many civilians in 6 months as Obama did in two years.

So if you wanted to see daylight between "corporate" Dems and Repubs there you have it.

Hillary lost because did didn't make the 99% (or bottom 33%) feel that she felt their pain or their resentments. Hillary acknowledged that the Earth is flat for capital and practically parabolic for labor, but she didn't provide a clear and compelling solution so a critically located minority of voters opted for the guy who said he would bring coal back.

Finally, Dems don't keep losing seats: Dems picked up 6 house seats and 2 Senate seats in 2016, and the special elections that Dems lost this year were all in Republican territory. In Georgia the winning Republican candidate said expressly "I do not support a livable wage"; I don't see how tacking left would have helped there.

in the rust belt and because Trump ran on a populist message while she ran, well, without one. She couldn't say anything that would piss off her corporate donors so she had to shy away from anything better than "we'll take a few percentage points off your college loans and let you borrow more money, and oh yeah health premiums are gonna skyrocket about 20% less". That's not a message _anyone_ could get behind. It didn't help that she was for TPP until it became clear it would cost her the primary.

Never mind the fact that the Dems should never has nominated somebody with 20 years bad press. But she could've weathered all that and won if she had just stopped being so damn arrogant and campaigned in the rust belt. She was off wasting time in Arizona while Trump's people were pounding the pavement in Ohio and Wisconsin. There's interviews with Dem party leaders in swing states talking about how they never once saw any of her people. When one of the key issues is that voters feel like their being forgotten and/or taken for granted and you're taking them for granted well, you're just out of touch.

Hilary was everything everybody hates about the Democrats. Not just in theory but in actuality. She's the real thing. A genuine right wing democrat. And just as useless.

I'm saying we've got some right wingers in our party who are soft on a few social issues. If I want to blame the Republicans for something I've got multiple wars, the 2008 economic crash (though Clinton gets some of that Blame for starting the deregulation that led to it), our awful healthcare system, the war on drugs and all the horror it brings, decades of institutionalized racism being used to drive a schism between members of the working class so wages could be suppressed.

I'm saying we've got some right wingers in our party who are soft on a few social issues.

Yes, the kind of people that actually represent what the majority of Americans want: small government, low taxes, individual responsibilty, and individual liberties. When the Democrats had more of those kinds of politicians, they were winning.
On the other hand, when even a fairly tepid progressive like Hillary can't win against someone as unlikable and incompetent as Donald Trump, you'd think people would figure out

to borrow more money. Whoop de do. When I was a kid college had massive federal subsidies. That's why it was affordable. Then Clinton started slashing those subsidies under the banner of 'Fiscal Responsibility'. The money was translated into tax cuts which in turn won him the donations he needed to get elected.

The Dems never really _do_ anything about those oligarchies. Obama did, but he was a president so as soon as he was out it didn't matter. If the Dems had at least run somebody anti TPP (e.g. someb

You mean it might be a bad idea to give politicians the power to break up companies over potentially vague, ill defined precepts like "hurting customers"? Shocking, shocking I tell you.

Where were the anti-trust regulators when Comcast bought NBC?...

"We won't enforce the rules already on the books, but you should totally give us more regulatory power to use at our complete discretion. Also, just ignore the billions of dollars spent by lobbyists, we're totally immune from outside influence and have the litt

Regulations that were effective in the past is no longer so. Much of what used to protect the American people has been torn away over the last 40 years. And now we have the ruling Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which neither the Democrats or Republicans wish to address. The status quo is profitable for the current oligarchy, and DNC posturing that they'll break up the "big bad corporation" lacks teeth because multinational corporations can reorganize so quickly under the same set of shareho

Much of what used to protect the American people has been torn away over the last 40 years. And now we have the ruling Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which neither the Democrats or Republicans wish to address.

You mean the decision that the First Amendment was important enough to allow people to exercise their right to political speech despite unconstitutional attempts to restrict it? A decision that protected the First Amendment is tearing away protections? Huh?

Yes, those people happened to have formed a corporation, but by doing so they did not abdicate their First Amendment rights. And you might want to note that the same decision that said that the people forming the corporation called Citizens United had First Amendment rights said that people who form labor unions also do not give up their rights. It was a decision that took the venue of paid political speech away from exclusive control of the media and allowed the public to band together to pay for speech they would otherwise be unable to afford.

I'd argue if the DNC was serious about going after corporate behavior that harms Americans, there would be talk from the main-stream Democrats to deal with the Citizens United ruling,

Yeah, Democrats would get a lot of political mileage by angering the labor unions that spend a lot of money on political speech supporting Democrats, and by becoming the party that opposes the First Amendment rights of the people.

but I really haven't seen anything but hot air.

I've see a lot of hot air about CU vs. FEC, but I've also read the decision and know the truth. Trying to claim that CU hurts Americans is only one warm front amongst many.

The fact that some old fucks decided it is speech does not change that.

That's not what the decision says. The decision comes to the quite reasonable conclusion that money is required to have effective speech. The days of someone standing on a soapbox for free in the public park being able to have his speech heard are long gone. It takes money to buy airtime and print -- money which the media has ready access to because they own the airtime and print, but which the common citizen does not because he cannot afford it. CU says that people like you and me have First Amendment righ

Both parties love to promise the world when they're in the minority, and then nothing gets done when they have the majority. The Republicans spent six years promising they had way better ideas than Obamacare. The American voters gave them control of Congress and the White House, now it's time to show their cards... and it looks like they have nothing.

But don't be too hard on the Republicans. The Democrats are now playing the same game. They're going to fix broadband, and education, and Obamacare, an

ummm no, the primary goal of the anti-trust laws is to prevent companies from using their position of strength to exploit users or leverage themselves into other markets, it has noting to do with breaking up companies though that sometimes is a remedy sort during an anti trust trial.

I get that they want to put on a good show, but it's not like they actually have the votes to accomplish a damned thing without help from the other side of the aisle. I don't see Republicans actually supporting this idea. It just seems rather unlikely.

So long as large companies can buy their own senators it is useless to put laws in place that will get passed with semi-truck sized loop holes and with key provisions watered down to homeopathic levels. Unfortunately it is also futile to try to pass campaign finance reform while big corporations and billionaires control congress, as those laws will have loopholes and be toothless as well.

I fear that basically we have lost control of our own governance at this point. We'll get to pick the color of the pain

I'm pretty sure you have lost control of your Government.
It amazes me that a country the size of the US has only 2 serious political parties.
Even the UK (which has first past the post electorates as well) managed to elect 9 different parties in the 2017 election.
I understand the argument that the two US parties are "Big Tent" parties, I'm just not buying it.

That's OK, just get them on the record as being opposed to it. Build a case. Republicans in Congress currently have a 20% approval rating (28% among Republican voters and 12% among Democratic voters). In January, they had a 50% approval rating among Republican voters. Tomorrow, after they vote (again) on a health care bill that no Republican member of Congresshas even seen yet, I expect that rating will go down again if the bill doesn't pass and do

0) Permit local municipalities to form utility-style ISPs.1) Permit companies such as Google to light up dark fiber.2) Watch as T-Mobile turns up 600Mhz wireless broadband.3) Figure out how to prevent ISPs with competing businesses diminishing various streaming services.

Watch NBC or Universal content that gets bundled into your Comcast service for "free", and doesn't count against your data cap.

Then those on AT&T DSL (or suddenlink, verizon FIOS, google fiber), get to pay $15/mo for the same. It's a double threat because not only does it hurt any competing ISP offer, but it also tries to lock in comcast customers from other competing video on demand services (Netflix). Of course, they will license the same content to Netflix for $30/mo/user if they want it.

...will be interesting if they actually attempt this when they're in power...

I'm going to guess not, as when the Democrats have the whip hand, they will be a better target for all those campaign contributions the telcos seem to offer.
The basic problem here is that the US Government sells itself off every year, it's just the buyers and the sellers that change.

and don't insist on TV connections to get deals that are better than standalone internet plans.

As far as I can tell, that's a fallacy. I am only buying internet from Comcast, and they'll sell me cable for just $5 more but not less. Except of course, between added local channel fees, sports, fees, equipment rental fees, etc... it's actually $45 more. So fuck 'em.

On one hand, the companies this would be targeting are big enough to hold either de facto or explicit monopoly power, which isn't good for competition. On the other, in this new zero-slack, tiny-margin economy that looks like it's upon us, large companies would be the only ones making enough profit to pay their employees well.

I was just reading this article [msn.com] 2 minutes before reading the linked article. Companies that are being squeezed to the point where they can't make any more money are certainly not going to make life easier for their employees. If you optimize the system 100% and remove all inefficiencies, you could have a situation where nobody can provide enough value to sell their labor anymore. I know that sounds very Luddite-y, but IMO we're at the point where the vast majority of people can't simply move up the job ladder to the next better position when theirs is eliminated. There are too many people employed in middleman positions who will no longer have work, nor have any way to get new work.

Sure, no one wants monopolies with unlimited pricing power. But should the alternative be a hyper-efficient world where no one of average skill and intelligence can find work?

Posting conspiracy theories that can be disproven with a single click doesn't make you look good.

Nobody modded the AC down. You're logged in, so you can click score in the title of the post. if it's been modded up or down, you'll see the initial posting score and a summary of the mods applied. As I post this, it was posted at zero and there's no history to show..

Posting conspiracy theories that can be disproven with a single click doesn't make you look good. Nobody modded the AC down. You're logged in, so you can click score in the title of the post. if it's been modded up or down, you'll see the initial posting score and a summary of the mods applied. As I post this, it was posted at zero and there's no history to show..

Pretty sure that if you post to undo a moderation it magically disappears.

Pretty sure a bunch of shills who were paid to mod down comments (the conspiracy being pushed here) wouldn't suddenly have a change of heart and see the light and come back and post as AC to remove their mods.

Uh, the Articles of Confederation was not an attempt to break up the Federal Government because there was no Federal Government (or USA) before then. The Articles of Confederation was the beta version, so to speak, and ratified before the war with Great Britain was even over.

Are you thinking of the Confederate States of America? Or their Articles of Secession? That was a different thing.